The Energy Revolution has begun and will change your lifestyle

Welcome to the Energy Blog

The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

Statistics

April 28, 2007

Sustainable Fuel for the Transportation Sector

Purdue University scientists Rakesh Agrawal, Navneet Singh, Fabio Ribeiro, and Nicholas Delgass have proposed a hybrid system of hydrogen and carbon that can produce a sufficient amount of liquid hydrocarbon fuels to power the entire U.S. transportation sector. The H2CAR process uses carbon produced by biomass and hydrogen supplied from carbon-free energy. The following is summarized and paraphrased from the online publication of their report cited above.

The process has several advantages:

The land area needed to grow the biomass is <40% of that needed by other routes that solely use biomass to support the entire transportation sector.

Prior known processes were estimated to be able to produce 30% of the United States transportation fuel from the annual biomass of 1.366 billion tons, while the H2CAR process shows the potential to supply the entire United States transportation sector from that quantity of biomass.

The synthesized liquid provides H2 storage in an open loop system.

Reduction to practice of the H2CAR route has the potential to provide the transportation sector for the foreseeable future, using the existing infrastructure.

In their proposal, the primary purpose of either coal or biomassis to provide carbon atoms needed for the production of liquidhydrocarbons. Thus, the goal is to accomplish the complete transformationof every carbon atom contained in either of the feed stocksto liquid fuel by supplementing the conversion process witha carbon-free energy source. They propose to generate H2 froma carbon-free primary energy source such as solar, nuclear,wind, etc. and then use it to supply the hydrogen atoms neededfor the chemical transformation.

There are a number of important consequences of the process. First,there is no CO2 emission from the chemical processing system,and the only CO2 released to the environment is from the transportationengine. Therefore, for coal, it eliminates the need to sequesterCO2 produced in the liquefaction process. Second, an associatedbenefit of the absence of CO2 release from the chemical processingsystem is that 40% of the amount of coal or biomass is neededto deliver the same quantity of liquid fuel. Third, by providing open-loop H2 storage, this solutionaddresses one of the grand challenges of the H2 economy. Fourth, on a carbon atom basis, the energy content of the liquidfuel is higher than that of coal or biomass.

Making the concept economically competitive with gasoline and diesel fuel would require research in two areas: finding ways to produce cheap hydrogen from carbon-free sources and developing a new type of gasifier needed for the process.

Many more details are included in the referenced report. The report states numerous advantages for producing the carbon from biomass rather than from coal. Even though it is too early to estimate costs, the process efficiencies are very good as indicated in table I of the report.

Comments

E-P's position is that any research that does not support PHEVs is a right wing conspiracy My position is that we need to look for multiple sources of energy if our goal is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel used. It would look to me that DOE is funding researchers in many areas.

My favorite is AgStar: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/2006digest.pdf Figure 1 show that the program has been effective in reducing ghg. It is a small program but we need many small solutions.

I would expect Purdue to approach research from a different perspective than Cornell or UC Berkley. PHEV only value is reducing air pollution in in large cities. Indiana has lots of farms that grow corn and soy beans, so Purdue may be focusing more on biomass to energy.

E-P's position is that any research that does not support PHEVs is a right wing conspiracy

While I certainly don't need to speak for him, E-P's position is, consistently, that any transportation energy proposal which ends with "then everyone will run the fuel through an ICE with 20% thermal efficiency" is of limited long-term practicality.

I myself find the argument compelling. Most low- or no-carbon sources are best suited to producing electricity; using that electricity to "manufacture" liquid fuel and then burning that fuel in an ICE is hideously inefficient; capital constraints imply that there will be limits on the total amount of energy available in the future so efficiency will count; using the electricity directly for transportation will be necessary.

I think no-carbon sources are more easily adaptable to driving heat-to-fuel processes like the iodine-sulphur one than is electricity to being stored on board vehicles in amounts large enough to provide ~200 driveshaft kWh. A lot easier than making ordinary motorists cease to require this much onboard drive energy, a lot less easy than saying they should just quit that.

As a mechanical engineer, I do not find comparing the thermal efficiency of what works to what does not work very compelling. ICE are very efficient. I use 15 gallons of gasoline a month. A more efficient energy conversion system might save a marginal amount of fossil fuel. However, my driving habits would make me a perfect candidate for a PHEV but would result in only a marginal reduction of fossil fuel or imported fuel, it any.

It's not new, Mark. Robert Rapier has worked on something similar to this, and just adding sufficient H2 to a gasifier output stream would allow all the carbon to be converted to fuels via F-T or other synthesis.

The issue is obtaining the H2. The problem is that all the suggested methods of making sufficient H2 would supply several times the energy required to run the vehicles on electricity (and eliminate all the noise and pollution issues of ICE's). The only thing which might make H2CAR worthwhile is a cheap system which produces hydrogen directly from e.g. sunlight. I touched on that issue in Fertilize this!.

For those who do not know it, there is already a hydrogen economy. There is even a map showing the locations of hydrogen plants. Most are located near refineries or anhydrous ammonia production facilities. The hydrogen is primarily produced from natural gas (CH4).

In other words, we already use lots of hydrogen from fossil fuel. All Purdue is doing is looking at other sources of hydrogen to input into the existing infrastructure. Renewable energy has been used to produce ammonia. One of the Scandinavian countries has done with excess hydroelectric.

If I recall correctly, 1.44 Tons of CO2 is produced for each ton of ammonia from natural gas. The EPA has a web site listing all the emission right down to the cadmium from tire wear for those who are interested in the finer points of life cycle emissions.

For the record, the ICEs that I use are clean and quite. If you live in a dirty stinky city stop crying about your the choices you have made. Too many people, not enough trees.

Speaking of trees, at least two of my neighbors heat with renewable energy judging by the not so quire ICE chain saws. Personally, I like an electric chain saw.

The problem is that all the suggested methods of making sufficient H2 would supply several times the energy required to run the vehicles on electricity [...]. The only thing which might make H2CAR worthwhile [...]

The assumption you have made here is that electricity can be used in all situations. It seems more likely that there will remain a subset of vehicle (and even automotive) applications that require chemical fuels, even if electrical energy takes most of the propulsion energy market.

I make no such assumption. Electricity can replace perhaps 80% of all liquid motor fuel with PHEV's alone; the remainder doesn't need H2CAR, and the inefficiencies of H2CAR would make it far too expensive anyway.

The whole thing is silly. The Solix process can turn CO2 back into biomass much more cheaply than H2CAR can make hydrogen to do the same job. The goal of the exercise should be least cost, including internalized environmental impact. H2CAR fails there.

80%??? Try 0.1%!!! First things first. After we figure out how to build sufficient capacity to stop making electricity with imported LNG, then we can decide where and when PHEV make sense. This is a job for children who have not been born yet.

E-P is consistent. First he trashes proven technology assuming that no new improvements will be made. Second he select his pixie dust solution de jour based on reading some press release designed to rip off investors. He then assumes that bench scale testing will translate to real world performance while ignoring economic and environmental impact.

The goal is to research alternate energy supplies. Purdue has not failed in this regard. During the first energy crisis is I did the same thing. I picked a topic that looked like the silver bullet for a dwindling natural gas supply for Indiana farmers. While being a hero would have been nice, it just was not feasible. In hindsight, the solution was finding lots more natural gas and building pipelines.

You mean chemistry, GreyFlcn. We already use hydrogen to produce gasoline using natural gas. All Purdue is doing is looking at different sources of hydrogen is the US has to shift to heavier crude or runs out of natural gas.

What a quaint non sequitur. I can't resist poking a hole in it. You realize of course that chemistry is simply a sub-set of physics? Let's consulate a definition given at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry

"According to modern chemistry, the physical properties of materials are generally determined by their structure at the molecular or atomic scale, which is itself defined by interatomic electromagnetic forces (ed: physics), and laws of quantum mechanics (ed: physics) and thermodynamics (ed: physics, derived from statistical mechanics)."

I make no such assumption. Electricity can replace perhaps 80% of all liquid motor fuel with PHEV's alone; the remainder doesn't need H2CAR

I disagree with the last conclusion. Demand for vehicle fuel, globally, will be much higher in the future. Perhaps the current US demand doesn't need H2CAR. What about the demand of a 9 billion person world with per capita gross product ten times the current value?

Don't you think that, sooner or latter, we will have to do more with less fossil fuel energy.

We can't keep on drilling more and more wells, transforming more coal into fuel and producing more and more alternative fuels to feed more bigger and bigger ICE gas guzzlers.

The time has come to increase mpg fivefold +, from under 20 to over 100, if we want to reach a sustainable energy situation. This cannot be done with improved transmission, direct injection ICE, diesel and similar mechanical improvements.

A mix of updated Hybrids + PHEVs + BEVs (and e-bikes + e-scooters) may be the best way to get from here to there. This is not a question of driving less or driving slower etc. We need more efficent machines using existing infrastructures. That's where the PHEVs fit in with their 100 to 200 mpg potential.

First generation PHEVs, with smaller, cheaper batteries may not offer more than 60 to 80 mpg but that will be improved to 100+ mpg within 3 or 5 years when larger-cheaper battery packs become available.

Transportation (most types) have to switch from coal-oil-alternative fuels to clean Electricity. Our homes HVAC have to evolve from wood-coal-oil-gaz to clean, highly efficent, electric systems.

SuperTurboFuelCells
Potential to Save £400.00 out of £1000.00 spent on Diesel.
It is no secret that Fuel Cells can make a huge difference to the costings.
Because of the escalating cost of fossil fuels used in Trucks, Busses, boats, cars static engines and heating the use of HHO gas Fuel Cells in Britain is a growing phenomena. A number of industry insiders and now the biggest investment banks confirm the cost of fuel could escalate by as high as £2.00 a litre by end of this year. This is clearly an urgent situation not only for the hauliers but the whole nation.
Without cost effective, no polluting alternatives (HHO gas reverts to water after combustion) the transport the distribution systems will become far to expensive to compete with their continental counterparts who obtain their fuel at a discount.
Those that have heard of the concept of fuel cells and who do a high mileage are keen to use the system. Taxis doing a high mileage with a corresponding big fuel spend can benefit hugely from an installation. The potential is to save up to 40% on fuel costs. I would like to emphasise that a TurboFuelCell is NOT a high pressure system holding huge volumes of volatile gas as is the case of LPG or even petrol. Further the storage medium is only water. The HHO gas is converted on demand using very small (similar to two double AA batteries) amperage of electricity directly from water in the cell. The HHO gas is supplied on demand only when the ignition is turned on. There is never any more than an egg cup of HHO gas in the system at any time as the engine vacuums the gas when it is produced immediately and burns it with the diesel.
Further there is a one way valve between the engine's carburetion system and the Fuel cell. This system is completely safe. Unlike LPG Gas or petrol fuel cells does not store large quantity of combustive or explosive fuel because water is the storage medium. As a matter of fact the only liquid held within the Cells in any quantity is water.
After combustion the HHO gas reverts to water and thus reduces pollution dramatically. As a matter of fact in the America equivalent of our MOT test in the faulty, clogged Catalytic Converter was remover prior to the test. The result was the HHO Fuel Cell produced dramatically lower pollution results. The testers had no idea the catalytic converter had been removed. Such cells included on diesel engines will dramatically reduce pollution.

Dear sir,
My self Prabhat Lakhera from IIT BOMBAY (INDIA)
I m highly impressed with your thought when i have seen this internet page on this site.
really we have to do for energy sector to save a significant amount of energy.

sir my question is some people are saying that energy sector is originally sustainable (that means when futute will come we will be able to drive the demand of the energy beacause of technology adavancement? so how you will react to this statement or what are your views on this?